MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1519999946 · doi:10.1109/vetec.1994.345078

The effect of data modulation format on intermodulation power in nonlinear amplifiers

2002· article· en· W1519999946 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectrical Contact Performance and Analysis
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntermodulationAmplifierModulation (music)Electronic engineeringNonlinear systemComputer sciencePower (physics)Function (biology)Probability density functionNonlinear distortionLinear amplifierRF power amplifierMathematicsTelecommunicationsPhysicsEngineeringBandwidth (computing)AcousticsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The paper presents a quick and accurate method for calculating the total intermodulation (IM) power at an amplifier output as a function of the modulation format and the amplifier nonlinearity. Although it does not give the spectral distribution, it does not require lengthy simulations. First, each modulation is characterized by the probability density function (pdf) of its instantaneous power. Next the candidate amplifiers are represented by their measured AM/AM and AM/PM characteristics (low degree polynomials are not required). In an application of linear estimation principles, a simple numerical integration gives the IM power resulting from any combination of modulation and amplifier.< <ETX xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">&gt;</ETX>

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.782
Threshold uncertainty score0.148

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.223 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it